Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-04


the constitution, but which might arise
| in the future development of the coun-
| try. This constitution makes the will OF
the law making power supreme, and
totally destroys the autonomy of the
states, and breaks down the barriers
that have been hitherto relied on
and deemed sufficient to protect
the states in the exercise of the
sovereignty they reserved to themselves.
But it Is now grave question, what pow
ers, if any, did the states reserve to them
selves?
| The bill prescribes what the states
shall do to entitle them to a share of the
bounty to be conferred. 1t the states
make no appropriation or provision for
public tree schools they will get no
money, 1t proposes that the general
government will help the states il they
adopt policy dictated by it. This bill
puts the federal government in the atti-
tude OF capricious ruler having author
ity over the states, his dependents, IN
which he has no confidence. 1t
says to the states: If you do not
imply with all the conditions impose. |
will withhold the appropriation from. you
and you can remain stepped in illiteracy,
|
although the general welfare of the
| United States be violated or endangered.
| This bill authorizes and empowers the
Secretary of the Interior to arragu and
try sovereign state for misapplyinG the
money assigned to II. After unneccessa-
rily and Illegally taking more money from
| he leope of the states than it should
have done. it says: l will restore it, not
~ no oh I'M
will prescribe, and if you violate the con-
ditions upon which | give il, L will arraign
and try you, and if fiud you guilty
will withhold from you the residue of the
appropriation. This is adding insult to
injury.
If this bill should become a law, in view
of the forts to get rid of tic surplus in
the Treasury, and thereby conceal from
| the oppressed taxpayers of the govern
ment that the burdens they have been
carrying were really unnecessary for the
| legitimate purposes of the government
economically administered, fear that it
will prove to be the extension OF d policy
| of reckless and unwise expenditures OF
money that will in time destroy the sym
metry and harmony of our dual system,
O5literate state lines, ignore the func-
lions of the state governments, and even
tuate in centralism.
The advocates of this bill assert that
the millions of dollars to be paid out to
the states and territories are intended to
aid them in supporting the common
| schools that exist or that may be estab-
| lished, because the poverty OF the people
| will not allow them to organize and sutfi-
GENTLY provide for the needs of education.
But it is not proposed to relieve these
| same poor people from the heavy taxes
| they pay which have contributed to their
poverty. 1t is not even proposed to dis
| tribute money that the United States do
| not need to pay their debts with, for
which it was collected.
But the proposition is to collect more
money from the people already SO i'm
poverished that they cannot provide for
| the educational wants of their children,
and then withhold it from them unless
they tax themselves still further to raise
an additional amount of money equal to
| the share that each state will be entitled
20 under the provisions of this bill. Are
the people capable of government
Is it a fact that the poor people ar reall"
benefited pecuniarily by taxation? Are
not the fathers and mothers of the
children of this country as capable Of
providing for their educational wants as
| we are They furnish the money. They
elect US. They pay our salaries. We do
not furnish the money. We eXtort it
from them and then propose TO give it
back after deducting the expense of col
lection, on conditions that involve sur
render of every pretense that each man is
q sovereign and capable of providing for
himself and the wants of his children.
The bill is unconstitutional. 1t is un-
American 1t is inconsistent with, and is
even at war with, the spirit and genius of
our institutions. 1t assumes that local
self government is failure. 1t exalts
the creature, the federal agency, above
the creator, the states, and declares that
the taxing power of the Uoited States is
limited ouly by the will of Congress. 1t
can In no proper sense be called bene
faction. 1t Is an oppression, and will be
a hindrsnce to the educational interests
that individuals, communities and states
are laboring to develop and permanently
establish.
How can Democrat vote for this bill
aud claim to be strict constructionist of
the federal constitution -? How can a
revenue reformer consistently vote for
this bill, that diverts S79,000,000 from
channels Of legitimate expenditure to
new enterprise of at least doubtful con-
stitutionality, and thereby create a pc
cessity to continue the present ruinous
system of taxation How can the anti
national bank advocate vote for so large
an appropriation for money for local
school purposes in the states when it is
so much needed to pay the interest
bearing bonded debt of the United States
that is now due, when he remembers that
the payment of the bonds of the govern
ment destroys the national banking sys-
TEN of the government, contamination
infinitely desirable?
We II mean Democrats) declare that
federal taxation should be for the public
purposes Of the government exclusively,
and not to exceed in amount the demands
tered. Is the distribution of money
among the states for educational pur
poses, under the provisions of this bill,
for national or public purposes or for
state or local purposes? Is there any
power in Congress to divert from public
to a private use money acquired by taxa
ton for any of the purposes enumerated
in the constitution? Has Congress the
power under the constitution to levy
tax except for federal purposes? If SO,
Is there any limit to its power to tax?
The federal government has no power
except that which has been given 1t by the
states by express grants in the constitu-
ton. What powers, if any, did the states
70 hnr sal hon